3 ms·
> the will to prosecute by authorities is often low I hate that this type of statement always pops up as soon as I see any mention of LE. While it might be tru
by donkeyd 4y ago
> the will to prosecute by authorities is often low
I hate that this type of statement always pops up as soon as I see any mention of LE. While it might be true for some parts of the US (and probably other countries), it isn't true for the majority of people involved in this field. It's just incredibly hard (thankfully) to convict someone of a crime. It requires a lot of evidence and paperwork. Meanwhile there's a pretty limited amount of resources to work on this kind of thing.
It would be impossible for 'authorities' to investigate 20 million images they receive from Facebook. But implying that authorities don't investigate anything, and don't even want to, is just flat out wrong. For example, here's a story about an awful child predator that was caught in The Netherlands, because American authorities started an investigation into reported images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_sex_crimes_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_sex_crimes_case
This case is also an example of what authorities tend to focus on, which is producers. A lot of effort is spent trying to prevent producers/abusers from causing more harm. All of this effort can't be invested in investigating brokers/spreaders of 'known' CSAM. Time is limited for everyone and it is too for authorities.
And yes, a probable majority of fraud cases don't get picked up, even if they seem obvious and easy to solve. This is because the man hours for actually getting someone convicted is huge and authorities usually focus on cases involving violence. I personally had to cut short fraud investigations, because preventing a wife from getting murdered by her husband or stopping an illegal arms shipment took preference. And I can't say I feel guilty about that.
- luckylion 4y ago> And I can't say I feel guilty about that. And you shouldn't. But it's still a problem that lots of fraud, scam etc just gets ignored. There's so much fraud out there that looks easy to stop, because it's clear who does it, it's clear that they do it (online, with plenty of evidence) etc etc. Yet when you bring it to the attention of the authorities, they'll look at the individual case and say "okay, but it's only 50€, there's not enough public interest", which I could understand, if it wasn't a commercial-grade criminal operation that does the same thing thousands or tens of thousands of times. I get that paperwork sucks and investigations take a lot of time and often get nowhere because something just doesn't materialize, but I get the feeling that we're more and more policing non-violent crime like Google & Co do tech support: if there's not a very public issue that the media is actively reporting on, it gets ignored. And if it's a resource issue: get more resources, it'll pay for itself many times over. A recent example in Germany where some Clan from Turkey had been defrauding the elderly for years and ran up dozens to hundreds of millions of Euros in damages could've been stopped very quickly if there had been more interest from law enforcement. I'm sure we could've paid a person or two with that kind of money.
- mountainb 4y agoFor fraud, also, there are civil remedies. If you really want it prosecuted, sue in civil court, win, and refer it for criminal prosecution. By and large prosecutors prioritize prosecuting acts for which there are no civil remedies.